The Fair Labor Court of District No. 5 of Rafaela rejected the request of Association of Dairy Workers of the Argentine Republic (Atilra) for Justice to prohibit or limit a series of actions against SanCor dairy cooperativewith whom he has had a conflict over a salary debt for several months.
The union asked, among other things, that the cooperative be ordered to abstain from carrying out any activity free of charge, as well as from any onerous act that implies the alienation of its assets (tangible and/or intangible); refrain from carrying out, without prior judicial authorisation, any act of administration (ordinary or extraordinary) that could alter the situation of the work creditors or the ability to meet previous work obligations;
He also requested that he be prevented from canceling debts for previous cause or title, with the exception of executive business debts; distribute leftovers or results of cooperative acts or other operations unrelated to cooperative management; pay advances to suppliers; acquire raw materials in excess of those needed for estimated production; stipulate contracts of any kind that impose payments such as lease, loan or fason contracts that involve the transfer of the use of the properties over which the company has rights; convert a previous title or cause into preferential credit; constitute guarantees or liens on one’s assets in favor of one’s own or another creditor; carry out investment activities.
Beyond questioning the legitimacy of the trade union body to request the measure, which “would translate, in fact, into a sort of displacement of the company’s natural management bodies, as for practically every act, even the merely administrative one , judicial authorization should be required” and operational”, the interim judge, Luca MarinoHe argued that the complaint was not of an urgent nature that the question requires.
Even when the company’s debt to its staff increases, “there is no imminent danger in sight of difficult or missed repairs, that is, the urgency of what is typical of the figure is not appreciated,” explained the official in his office.
Furthermore, he underlined that “the trade union body itself recognizes this is in conciliation proceedings with the defendant at the Ministry of Human Capital of the Nation, and that the company has submitted a payment proposal in the future.” This means that the conflict is worked out by the parties in the corresponding state area. In fact, the mandatory conciliation between them expires Tuesday 16 January.
Marín argued that there is no imminent danger of an impossible or difficult subsequent repair, “to the extent that a debt situation is created, the negotiation between the parties, the commitment to pay a part of the debt”.
Likewise, he indicated that “the simple disagreement with the way in which this negotiation is taking place or the need to repay the previous debt – although still legitimate – does not allow the implementation of the requested measures”.
Indeed, “the appellant does not clarify what this imminent harm would be beyond the recognized situation of non-compliance which, among other things, is not what would allow this type of measures to be allowed,” he added.
For the judge it is not clear how and in what way the envisaged measures would contribute to resolving the debt situation of the company with its staff. Furthermore, “it is understood that the sending of the requested measures would imply sort of, if not company blockyes say slowdown of your business“since the cooperative should do it require judicial authorization for any type of act or business, even those of mere administration, which, “in reality, would inevitably mean the paralysis of its activity.
Therefore, he felt that “the measure requested appears excessive or disproportionate in relation to a mere debt situation which, although evident over time, is the only thing that is noticeable in the case and for the moment.
Atilra’s request, it seemed to him a paradox: “If the provision were issued as requested, it would inevitably affect the performance of the company and, with it, the source of resources to meet the payment for which it has already committed. That is, the measure requested as a palliative of a situation would end up worsening it“, he analyzed.
Furthermore, he specified that the union “has not provided a single concrete piece of data which allows us to glimpse that the defendant company has committed or is about to commit acts which tend to affect its assets”.
With these arguments, Marín he rejected the proposal formulated by the trade union entity, sending a copy of its refusal to the Ministry of Human Capital of the Nation.
It should be remembered that the union began with meetings that paralyzed activity within the company in October. Then SanCor presented a plan and a payment schedule to regularize the situation and the Ministry of Labor issued the mandatory conciliation, which expires this Tuesday 16 January.
“We will certainly be present at that hearing and they will certainly ask for another extension which we will oppose. Maybe in five days the conciliations will be finished”, they said from Atilra.
Source: Clarin
